A central falsehood underlies President Obama's frequently expressed desire for more "stimulus" dollars. He not so subtly suggests that the main problem in a nation which has witnessed explosive growth of the federal workforce, which has a more than $16 trillion debt and which has a series of entitlements that are rushing toward bankruptcy is that the federal government is -- wait for it -- too small!
Really? Who'da thunk it?
To grasp the lunacy -- to say nothing of the sheer gall -- of such a notion, consider the fact that the federal workforce grew by a quarter of a million employees from just before Obama took office through last September. That amounted to a 13 percent increase, and today's civilian federal workforce stands at a grotesquely bloated 2.2 million people.
There was a minuscule decrease from last September through early this year at agencies such as the IRS, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. But as USA Today noted, even those agencies still employed more people than they did before the Obama-era government hiring extravaganza. And not to get all picky and technical about it, but during the same swelling of the ranks of federal bureaucrats, private-sector employment was plunging by 5 percent.
Does Washington even notice all that private-sector suffering? Commentator Jonathan Chait doesn't think so. He made a disturbingly cogent observation in a recent column.
Noting that unemployment is remarkably low around Washington, D.C., an area that prospers greatly from federal spending, Chait declared of his own neighborhood in Washington, "when my children grow up, they'll have no personal memory of having lived through the greatest economic crisis in eighty years. It is more akin to a famine in Africa."
So much for all the condescending gabble about Washington "feeling our pain."
Meanwhile, you could have missed it if you blinked, but it was only weeks ago that our national debt passed the scarcely comprehensible mark of $16 trillion.
Your share as a U.S. citizen: $51,000. The bill per taxpayer: $140,000.
But no, Mr. Obama, don't hesitate for a moment to keep calling for more stimulus and an even larger federal workforce.
While you're at it, don't bother making any serious calls for reform of entitlements, either. Don't point out to the American people that Medicare is expected to go broke just a few years down the road and that the Social Security Ponzi scheme is projected to collapse not very long after that. Why should you? Assuming you have more respect for the 22nd Amendment's limits on presidential terms than you have for other parts of the Constitution, you'll be out of office by then and it'll be somebody else's problem. No muss, no fuss.
No economy either, of course, but why get bogged down in petty details?
related articles »
A famous engraving on the exterior of a New York City post office reads, "Neither snow nor rain nor heat ...
It can't be a good sign when our country more or less gets used to the federal government adding more ...
President Barack Obama and some members of Congress are convinced that the government should be taxing, borrowing and spending even ...
No one can say that Tennessee and the rest of the nation were not warned about the financial dangers of ...
It is really scary that the Dems think another stimulus plan is viable. We have reached 16 trillion which is 100 percent of US GDP. What is it they are not getting?
We cannot pay the interest on the 16 trillion debt, and the Federal budget operates in a deficit. There are non profits attempting to educate the public, who wrongly believe we can continue to borrow our country out of economic decline.
Print Money, Inflation
Raise Taxes, Increase Unemployment
Borrow Money, we are tapped out.
Cut SS and entitlement programs, people will go hungry.
Global ECONOMIC Collapse 2012 [WORLD DEBT CRISIS] by CapitalWatch
It's impossible to take anyone seriously who insists on referring to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme." A true Ponzi scheme, by its very nature, is destined to be short-lived and to collapse on itself from its own illegitimacy. It is just what it says it is - a scheme devised by one or a very small number of conspirators with inside knowledge that will enable them to make money off the backs of investors who place their trust in them.
Social Security has been a transparent program from its inception over 75 years ago, with everyone knowing how the system works and knowing, as they get closer to their retirement years, exactly what they can expect their pay-out to be when it comes time to collect. It has worked almost flawlessly for those 75 years and has been the difference for millions of Americans between dire poverty and a life of relative comfort and dignity.
Certainly Social Security needs some tweaking if it is to remain solvent and functional, but it is a sound system, as shown by its longevity and near-flawless operation, accomplishing everything that it was intended to accomplish. For anyone to call it a "Ponzi scheme," as many of the government hating conservatives today do, and thus make it appear that it is somehow illegitimate and unethical, is irresponsible hyperbole at best and an outright lie at worst.
Liberalization and tweaks along the way and the ponzi scheme of current workers supporting recipients fails as we approach only three workers per recipient. The demographics weren't accurately considered at the conception and the vote buying liberalizations.
Ponzi or not, it has promised more than it can afford to deliver. Medicare/aid is worse in that regard.
The right-wingers have some good points but they fail to mention one little detail--what do you do with the millions of unemployed? The Bush tax cuts have failed to produce the jobs promised in the private sector, so does the govt let the unemployed starve and go homeless, let them live on food stamps and welfare or give them a job? come on right-wingers, where's your alternative solution, beside more wealthy tax cuts that produce more phantom jobs?
So EaTn, tell us how raising taxes provides jobs.
Owebama wants to funnel more of other people's money to union pensions and government make work jobs. This is his voting base. This is obvious to even the most casual observer.
EaTn: "The right-wingers have some good points"
Damn, EaTn, that's all you had to say!
Socialism Security has elements of a Ponzi scheme and that is why it is often referred to as a Ponzi scheme.
The primary element is that of ratios. Both have large numbers of people paying into the system in the beginning, relative to those receiving payouts. The millions of people involved in the system is the reason for the longevity of the Ponzi scheme of Socialism Security.
That ratio in the Socialism Security Ponzi scheme is now in the neighborhood of 2-3 to 1 and that is why the end is near for the easy money. The Socialists and con artists could continue Socialism Security but the worker will now receive LESS in benefits than he pays into the system.
conservative said... "So EaTn, tell us how raising taxes provides jobs"
You take the money out of the bank account of those wealthy who were suppose to use the Bush tax cuts to create jobs, but didn't. Then you use that money to create a job for those we currently are giving unemployment or welfare. Isn't that what the right-wingers propose--let the welfare folks earn the money?
EaTN after the govt. takes money for those who are wealthy (and what is your definition of wealthy) who is going to use that money to create jobs, the government? What jobs do they create that provide a product to be purchased?
You have taken more money from those you call wealthy so they have less to hire and expand their business.
The left keeps crying about the Bush tax cuts and the wealthy not creating jobs. What was the unemployment rate under Bush? It was no where near 8% and there were more people in the work force during ther time Bush was in office.
Liberal Logic: Mrach 2004 Jobs Report:
New Jobs crated 308,000.
Population employed 62.1%
Obama says March 2004 Jobs Report is not a sign the economy is recovering.
August 2012 Jobs Report:
New jobs created: 96,000
Population employed: 58.4 percent
Obama says August 2012 Jobs Report is a clear sign the economy is recovering.
"You have taken more money from those you call wealthy so they have less to hire and expand their business." - rick1
How long are you conservatives going to keep clinging to that worn-out drivel about not taxing the wealthy so they can hire more and "expand their business?" My god, man, we have had almost 12 years of the lowest tax rates on the wealthy that we have had in practically the entire history of taxation in this country. They have accumulated more money than they know what to do with. If they really wanted or needed to expand their business there is nothing stopping them. The fact is, the wealthy prefer to invest their money, not put it into business expansion. The only thing that is going to make it necessary and advantageous for small or big businesses to create more jobs is more demand. It does not take a PhD in economics to realize that. When the middle class and the average working person have more money to spend, then there will be more demand. It is we average joes who buy things (when we can) who create the demand.
You trickle-down fanatics cannot accept the hard, cold fact that trickle down does not work. It has had years to prove itself but it has never done what it's supposed to do. Money does not trickle down from the top, it only gushes upward and enriches the already rich even more.
If you recall, it was under Bush that the bubble finally burst and everything went to hell in a hand-basket. Yes, the economy looked better on paper, until towards the end of his regime, and there were definitely more jobs during most of the Bush tenure, but the rich just kept getting richer and the middle class wages were stagnant all along and even declining. Income disparity between the top and the bottom and middle-income earners can only expand so much before the ramifications will be felt across the board.
Trickle-down is nonsense and has been proven to be such. But you rabid righties keep mumbling your trickle-down mantra like brain-dead zombies.
rick1 said... "EaTN after the govt. takes money for those who are wealthy (and what is your definition of wealthy) who is going to use that money to create jobs, the government? What jobs do they create that provide a product to be purchased?"
Well, if the job makers had used the Bush tax cuts to create jobs as Bush suggested, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is some instead used these tax cuts to increase personal wealth. Yes, we taxpayers sacrificed jobs to finance their wealth. Unfortunately, because some companies have chosen to export jobs(does that ring a bell?), we can not depend on these same companies to use more tax subsidies to create jobs.
Rickaroo when the govt takes more money from the wealthy what are they going to spend it on to create jobs?
If you want to talk about the middle class wages being stagnant during the Bush years, you will want to look at the latest Census Bureau report. Under Obama median annual household income dropped by more than $2,000 in real terms since 2009, a 4.1% decline.
Despite more than three full years of economic recovery, nearly 2.7 million more people are languishing in poverty than in 2009. The current 15% poverty rate is well above where it stood in Obama's first year in office — 14.3%.
Despite Obama's repeated promises to grow the economy from the "bottom up," his policies have managed to widen the gap between rich and poor.
You mention the failure of trickle down economics. Let us take a look at Reagonomics Vs Obamanomics since those on the left speak always speak of Reagan and trickledown economics.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/091212-625560-obamanomics-results-are-in.htm?p=full
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/05/05/reaganomics-vs-obamanomics-facts-and-figures/
EaTn, regarding your "you take the money out of the bank account of those wealthy who were suppose to use the Bush tax cuts to create jobs, but didn't."
Although I believe most Liberals/Socialists/Demoncrats agree with this, I'm still astonished you wrote it. I wish these others would admit this as you did.
However, this is not the way it is done in America. We don't just take money from people's bank accounts. This is both totalitarian thinking and conduct. Also, our business community doesn't make deals with our government to create jobs in exchange for tax cuts.
EaTn, regarding your "Then you use that money to create a job for those we currently are giving unemployment or welfare."
What in the world? Who creates these jobs? Does the government force business to create a job for jobs sake. America just doesn't work like this.
What a bizarre proposal!
What is it some Obama followers cannot understand about fundamental economics. Our Country's debt is 100 percent of the GDP, at $16 trillion, and the Federal budget is not balanced and operates in a deficit so we borrow to balance. Just where is the USA going to borrow for another round of proposed Stimulus? They must truly believe the public does not understand economics.
The Federal Reserve and another Stimulus will not resolve, just prolong.
There will be very painful cuts in social security, medicare, higher taxes, and cuts in entitlements to monumental proportions.
The biggest crime perpetrated against the American people were free trade agreements, that do not benefit our country at all.
conservative said...."Does the government force business to create a job for jobs sake."
If you will remember a few years back, the Bush tax cuts were intended to stimulate private sector jobs by taxing the jobs creators less so they would be patriotic and use that money to create more jobs. Well, we can see how patriotic the jobs creators used that money to create jobs.
aae1049 regarding the stimulus spending..."There will be very painful cuts in social security, medicare, higher taxes, and cuts in entitlements to monumental proportions."
So, what the right-wingers leave out of the equation is what happens if we don't use stimulus money...do they propose to let unemployment continue to rise and folks starve in the streets. It's very easy to live in a fine home, drive a nice car and eat in fancy restaurants then ignore the sink hole that several millions in this country sink further into each year. If the private sector doesn't do the job, then who else will besides the govt?
EaTn, regarding your, "If you will remember a few years back, the Bush tax cuts were intended to stimulate private sector jobs by taxing the jobs creators less so they would be patriotic and use that money to create more jobs"
No I don't remember anything about job creators intending to or pledging to create jobs for patriotic reasons. That is so bizarre! However, I would relish you providing information supporting that claim. I am always curious where and how Socialists/Liberals/Demoncrats get their indoctrination.
Conservative: notice how EaTN never answered my question as to what his defintion of wealthy is? He also never answered the question what product does the govt. produce that consumer purchase.
EaTN is all for the govt. stealing from those who has more than he does. Thomas Sowell said it best about EaTN and all of the other liberals. "Liberalism is totalitarisim with a human face."
EaTn Why is it liberals have to throw in the "right winger?" What is the purpose of using that term?
There is a price to pay when spending, exceeds revenue over long periods of time, and lines of credits are exhausted. Our County is not bankrupt yet, only because we have excellent lines of credit borrowing capability. It is a common business principle, where you try to keep it afloat, and the lines of credit eventually dry up. That is what Stimulus spending is all about, borrowing to buy time.
Another stimulus round will exhaust our options, when there are better options, such as seeding small business, yes small would have greater sustained outcomes. Did you know the largest employer in the state of Tennessean is small business, not the VW's Amazons, etc. I regress.
No one action is the cure all. It will take many, raise taxes across the board, CUT CUT CUT all non essential gov programs, seed small business, cut foreign aid, abolish many free trade agreements that do not benefit our country, and tariff the H out of the products of manufacturers that move plants, reward those than stay,....
oh I forgot lobbyist with campaign contributions will not allow any of this. Sorry.
Stimulus is such a waste of money. The last round of stimulus was the worst managed spending I had ever seen. The roadway projects funding for local government, and ready to build funds took gov almost 2 years to bid and award it was pathetic. The entire point of stimulus is to quickly get the private sector to work on projects, it failed miserably, and don't get me started on the fraud. Gov. is too dysfunctional to execute timely plans, and stimulus was a failure, and it will only defer, very temporary.
We cannot print our way out of debt without causing people to lose their jobs, and increase poverty.
AAE1049 said:
"What is it some Obama followers cannot understand about fundamental economics. Our Country's debt is 100 percent of the GDP, at $16 trillion, and the Federal budget is not balanced and operates in a deficit so we borrow to balance. Just where is the USA going to borrow for another round of proposed Stimulus? They must truly believe the public does not understand economics."
Hey, economic Einstein, the public understands that even in the economic wasteland you describe, billionaires still seem to be able to give themselves million dollar bonuses which they squirrel away in offshore accounts where its economic value is akin to, er, Monopoly money - sort of akin to sucking the blood out of a body until it cannot sustain life, sending it off to a blood bank, and then pontificating about how the donor body is failing for lack of blood and claiming no responsibility for it.
rick1 said.."Conservative: notice how EaTN never answered my question as to what his defintion of wealthy is?"
I'm really not an authority on money wealth, but wealth in general is having friends, family and good health. As for money wealth, Romney said anything around $250 thousand a year is middle class. But with him being born into money wealth, I'd prefer to have someone who's actually crossed through the $250 thousand per year mark recently to say if they noticed a wealthy feeling when they did.
aae1049 said..".EaTn Why is it liberals have to throw in the "right winger?"
Because, I think that there should be a distinction for uncompromising liberals and conservatives, so left-winger and right-winger seems appropriate.
Librul, I don't claim to be an economic Einstein at all, and support tax increases for corporations, cut cut cuts in gov spending and detest tax breaks. In fact, I don't know that much. Except, there are common sense and obvious issues, that do not require an Einstein.
If you owe $16 trillion, that is 100 percent of GDP, how are you going to borrow your way out, Einstein? Line of credit, drying up.
EaTN you said you are not really not an authority on money wealth, but yesterday you said the government should take the money out of the bank account of those who are wealthy.
So you can not tell us who is wealthy but you want the government to take from them. Liberal logic never ceases to amaze me.
Just a reminder that President Bush and Secretary Paulson came to congress in their last few months in office, drastically warning that the US economy was on the verge of collapse and pleading for billions to shore-up the economy. That was the beginning of bailing out the sinking boat which still is going on today.
aae1049, common sense isn't taking you very far on this one, as you're missing out on the most important part of it. Knowing what you know you don't know. Which means not thinking things that are simply in error.
GDP isn't the sum total of the country's assets, or even the government, it's just a measure of yearly activity. Not of the entirety of economics.
Another thing that common sense might tell you is that that debt wasn't borrowed all at once, and that it won't be paid all at once either.
The only people who try that sort of thing are loan sharks.
Anyway, people are still buying federal bonds, because they do trust them.
Or login with:
New Account